Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 16, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Language agents remain brittle in interactive environments, where success requires long-horizon state tracking, valid action execution, and recovery from failed steps. We extend SwiftSage, a dual-process agent that combines a fast action proposer with a slower planner, using two modular cognitive extensions: an Adaptive Memory Module (AMM) for salience-gated episodic storage and trigger-driven retrieval, and a Self-Reflection Module (SRM) for bounded execution-time validation and corrective intervention. Both modules are implemented as feature-flagged extensions over the same execution substrate, enabling controlled ablations on ScienceWorld. Across four configurations---baseline, baseline+AMM, baseline+SRM, and the full system---the full system achieves the best mean final score (64.62), success rate (43.17%), and successful-step efficiency (19.33 steps), while SRM is the strongest standalone contributor. The results suggest that execution-time control is the dominant bottleneck in this setting, while episodic memory becomes most useful once the runtime loop is stabilized.